EQA17 v Minister for Immigration

EQA17 (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration (the respondent) to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant, who is of Sudanese origin, claimed to fear persecution in Sudan due to their membership of a particular ethnic group and their perceived political opinions. The Minister had refused the protection visa application on the basis that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before Lucev J of the Federal Court of Australia was whether the Minister's decision to refuse the protection visa was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the court was asked to consider whether the delegate of the Minister had failed to properly consider the applicant's claims of persecution, particularly in relation to the assessment of the risk of harm and the availability of protection within Sudan. The applicant argued that the delegate had overlooked or undervalued crucial evidence supporting their claims.

Lucev J found that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error by failing to adequately consider the applicant's evidence regarding the specific risks they faced in Sudan. The court held that the delegate's assessment of the country information and the applicant's personal circumstances was superficial and did not engage with the substance of the applicant's claims. The legal principle applied was that a decision-maker must genuinely consider all relevant evidence and submissions presented by an applicant when assessing a protection visa claim. The court emphasised that a failure to do so constitutes a failure to exercise the power conferred by the *Migration Act* according to law.

The court made orders setting aside the decision of the Minister and remitting the application for a protection visa to the respondent for reconsideration according to law.